The International Journal of Indian Psychology ISSN 2349-3429 (e) ISSN: 2349-3429 (p) Volume 2, Special Issue, Paper ID: IJIPS20150401 http://www.ijip.in March 2015 The Relationship between Competitive State Anxiety and Sport ABSTRACT: Performance on Football Players Vincent Parnabas 1 Sports psychologists have long believed that high levels of competitive state anxiety during competition are harmful, worsening performance and even leading to dropout. The instrument used for the study comprised of a 27-item Competitive State Anxiety Inventory 2 and The Psychological Performance Inventory which had been distributed during sport between universities competition. The sample consisted of 119 football players, including the national athletes (N=37), state athletes (N=23), district athletes (N=23) and university athletes (N= 36). The results showed that elite or national football athletes exhibited lower levels of competitive state anxiety, F (3, 119) = 18.441, p <.01. The result also showed that the exits of negative correlation between competitive state anxiety and sport performance among football players, (r = -0.77; p<0.05). Sport psychologists, sport counselors and coaches should use the present findings to recommend coping strategies to university and district level athletes that are appropriate for dealing with their athletes competitive state anxiety. Keywords: Competitive state anxiety, Sport Performance, Skill of players. INTRODUCTION: Anxiety as a negative emotional state, can affect athletes performance by display cognitive and physiological symptoms (Weinberg & Gould, 2011; Anshel 2003). Cognitive anxiety is characterized by negative expectations and concerns, and worries about performance, inability to concentrate, disrupted attention, possible consequences of failure (Ampofo-Boateng 2009; McNally, 2002). These feelings have a tendency to be debilitative of performance. Whereas, somatic anxiety component is the physiological effects, consists of an individual s perceptions, which are characterized by indications such as sweaty palms, tense muscle, shortness of breath, increased heart rate, butterflies in the stomach, and shakiness (Martens, Vealey & Burton, 1990). Multi-dimensional Anxiety Theory is based on the distinction between two components of anxiety, cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety. In this theory, cognitive and somatic subcomponents of anxiety influence performance. 1 Sport Science and Recreation Faculty, University of MARA Technology (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia. Editor, IJIP 2015 I V Parnabas; licensee IJIP. This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
In sport psychology, the relation between competitive state anxiety and performance has been the subject of many sport psychologist researches (Hardy & Jones, 1994). Anxiety was considered one of the main important psychological factor influence performance (Raglin & Hanin, 2000). There has been a large amount of research concerning the multidimensional aspect of anxiety (Martens et al. 1990). For the past 20 years, many researchers have done to find the effect of somatic and cognitive anxiety on athletes performance (Rotella & Lerner, 1993). But the result was inconsistent (Aufenanger, 2005). Although, research had proven that there is a link between level of competitive anxiety and performance, the role of demographic factors in influencing anxiety levels is yet to be determined (Humara, 2001; Martens et al., 1990) especially skill of athletes. Moreover, research shows that the level of competitive anxiety among athletes differs according to individuals (Raglin & Hanin, 2000; Turner & Raglin, 1996). Most of the previous research, focused on elite athletes, while ignoring less successful athletes. According to Mahoney and Meyers (1989) and Lloyd and Mayes (1999), athletes of different levels of skill will show different levels of competitive anxiety. The extant literature also shows that there is a limited research comparing on competitive anxiety among athletes of state, district and university level. This was confirmed by Krane (1995) that research on competitive anxiety mainly focused on elite athletes. In Malaysia, no research has been done involving these four categories of skill. The culmination of the recognition of a Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety, in relation to the field of sport psychology, come about the through Martens et al. s (1990) development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). AIMS The main purpose of this study was to examine the levels of competitive state anxiety, which include cognitive and somatic anxiety, among football players of different skill. The present study aim to determine the level of competitive state anxiety and its effect on performances between football players of national, state, district and university level. In other words, this research sought to correlate the relationship between competitive state anxiety anxiety and performance. METHODS In order to assess level of competitive state anxiety (cognitive and somatic), athletes responded to the 27-item Competitive State Anxiety Inventory 2 (CSAI-2) (Martens et al., 1990), using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). CSAI-2 was used to measure athletes tendency to respond competitive sport situation during competition. Besides that, 42-item of The Psychological Performance Inventory had been distributed. The Psychological Performance Inventory asses seven factor of performance: Self Confident, The International Journal of Indian Psychology 2
Negative Energy, Attention Control, Visualization and Imagery, Motivation, Positive Energy Control and Attitude Control. The sample consisted of 119 football players, including the national athletes (N=37), state athletes (N=23), district athletes (N=23) and university athletes (N= 36). RESULT Respondents Profile The respondents profile described their ranking, ethnic and age. Table 1 shows the overall results of the respondents profile for 119 football players. The age of male respondents varied from 18 to 23 years, where the mean age was 21.31 years old. The variable rank which is gathered through this study is categorized into four levels namely, national, state, district and university. The result showed that 37 respondents had participated at national, whilst 23 respondents participate at state, 23 had participated at district and 36 respondents participated at the university level. Majority of the respondents, were undergraduates for Degree (n=90) and Diploma (n=29) programmes. Table 1: Respondents Profile (n=119) Variables Frequency Percentage Mean SD Athletes according to Skills National State District University 37 23 23 36 31.09 19.33 19.33 30.25 Programme Diploma Degree 29 90 24.37 75.63 Age Male 21.31 2.17 The International Journal of Indian Psychology 3
Cronbach Reliability Coefficients In this study, Cronbach alpha coefficients were found relatively high, ranging from.84 to.87 (Table 2). Table 2: Cronbach Reliability Coefficients Questionnaire Competitive State Anxiety Sports Performance Cronbach s Alpha (n=119).8730.8417 Level of Competitive State Anxiety Table 3 shows the mean scores for the competitive state anxiety among football athletes of different skills, F (3, 119) = 18.441, p <.01. Apparently, significant differences emerged for the athletes having different skills at competition. Overall, the mean score obtained for the national athletes was lower than those in other categories. Table 3: Level of Competitive State Anxiety among Football Players Skills of Athletes Mean F-Value P-Value National 13.5402 State 15.7812 District 17.4893 University 20.3402 ** p=.01 18.441** 0.000 Post-Hoc Tukey Test (Table 4) showed that the level of competitive state anxiety of university were higher than district (p=.05), state (p=.05) and national (p=.05) level athletes. Furthermore, the level competitive state anxiety of district were higher than state (p=.05) and national (p=.05), but lower than university level athletes (p=.05). In addition, the level of competitive state anxiety of state were higher than national (p=0.05), but lower than district (p=.05) and university (p=.05) level athletes. Lastly, the level of competitive state anxiety of national were lower than state (p=.05), district (p=.05) and university level athletes (p=.05). The International Journal of Indian Psychology 4
Table 4: Post Hoc Tukey Test: Level of Competitive State Anxiety among Football Players Skill of Athletes National State Distict University N National * (1.3420) * (1.8761) * (2.2401) 37 State 23 District 23 University 36 *p=.05 Level of Sport Performance Table 5 shows the mean scores for the sport performance among the football athletes of different skills, F (3, 119) = 18.873, p <.01. Apparently, significant differences emerged for the athletes having different skills at competition. Overall, the mean score obtained for the national athletes was higher than those in other categories. Table 5: Level of Sport Performance among Football Players Skills of Athletes Mean F-Value P-Value National 24.8721 State 20.4728 District 16.4429 18.873** 0.000 University 12.3781 ** p=.01 Post-Hoc Tukey Test (Table 6) showed that the level of sport performance of national were higher than district (p=.05), state (p=.05) and university (p=.05) level athletes. Furthermore, the level of sport performance state football players were higher than district (p=.05) and university (p=.05), but lower than national level athletes (p=.05). In addition, the level of sport performance of district were higher than university (p=0.05), but lower than national (p=.05) and state (p=.05) level athletes. Lastly, the level of sport performance of university were lower than state (p=.05), district (p=.05) and national level athletes (p=.05). The International Journal of Indian Psychology 5
Table 6: Post Hoc Tukey Test: Level of Sport Performance among Football Players Skill of Athletes National State Distict University N National * (1.100) * (1.7109) * (2.0046) 37 State 23 District 23 University 36 *p=.05 Correlation of Competitive State Anxiety and Sport Performance The correlation coefficient of -0.77 was noted between the level of competitive state anxiety and sport performance in the evaluation of 119 football players, which is significant (P <.05). In other words, the negative relationship existing between these variables is statistically significant (Table 7). Negative correlation indicates that either variables increase or decrease contradictory. Table 7: The Relationship between the Level of Competitive State Anxiety and Sport Performance Subject The Level of Cognitive Anxiety * * p=.05 Sport Performance -0.77** (0.000) DISCUSSION Level of Competitive State Anxiety The result showed that football players of university level exhibited higher competitive state anxiety level than those in state and district categories, whereas national athletes showed the lowest. In Malaysia, no research involving the four categories of skills has been conducted so far, therefore this research has failed to compare these with the findings of previous research. However, according to Drive theory, the present of audience for low skilled athletes, during the sport competition could increase their competitive state anxiety. Competitive state anxiety includes symptoms of cognitive and somatic anxiety. Cognitive anxiety is the extent to which an athlete worries or had negative thoughts, and the negative thoughts may include fear of failure, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence. Somatic anxiety refers to athletes changes in their physiology, such as increased perspiration, difficulty in The International Journal of Indian Psychology 6
breathing, increased heart beat, changes in the brain wave, elevated blood pressure, increased urination, butterflies in the stomach, less saliva in the mouth and muscle tension. The sympathetic nervous system is stimulated by fear perception in the cerebral cortex, prompting an immediate stress response. Both of these anxieties could lead to the poor performance of an athlete in competition. It may start before a competition in the form of pre-competitive anxiety that might affect performance throughout the competition. Elite athletes like national and state level, who have learned anxiety management skills, often respond to a greater degree to competitive state anxiety but return to their resting rate sooner than those athletes, who are not trained in anxiety management like district and university level. At the interview session with the football athletes it was found that most of the national athletes using coping strategies like positive self talk, thought stopping, relaxation techniques and imagery to reduce their competitive state anxiety level. In the other hand, most of the low skill athletes like district and university level unaware and not practicing of these techniques. Therefore, the level of competitive state anxiety of district and university level athletes was very high. Level of Sport Performance The result showed that national football athletes obtain the highest sport performance compared state, district and university skill athletes. The main reason national athletes perform better than other skill athletes because most of them use coping strategies to reduce their competitive state anxiety. High level of competitive state anxiety is the barrier for high performances in sport. The result showed that district and university skill football athletes experienced highest level of cognitive anxiety, therefore their sport performances has been drop. Many research proved that high level of competitive state anxiety has been the barrier to deteriorate performance in sport. Level of Competitive State Anxiety and Sport Performance The main aim of the study was to test Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety through Competitive State Anxiety Inventory 2 (CSAI-2). The present study hypothesized that those athletes experience high level of competitive state anxiety had a low level of performance and athletes experienced low level of competitive state anxiety had high level of performance. The result revealed there exists of negative correlation between competitive state anxiety and sport performance. It means the higher the level of competitive state anxiety experience by football athletes, the lower sport performance level. The relationship between competitive state anxiety and performance was explained best in Multidimensional Anxiety Theory. This theory explains that somatic and cognitive anxiety effect performance. The relationship between somatic and cognitive anxiety, where an athlete experiences physiological and cognitive changes, The International Journal of Indian Psychology 7
will affect the performance (Ampofo-Boateng, 2009). The hypothesis that there was a negative correlations between competitive state anxiety and performance, was supported Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety. This investigation supported those researches done by Cox (2011), Tsorbatzoudis, Barkoukis, Sideridis and Grouios (2002), Beilock and Carr (2001), Ntoumanis and Biddle (1998), Wann (1997), Krane and Williams (1994), Nideffer (1993), Martens et al. (1990) and, Rodrigo, Lusiardo and Pereira (1990). Hence, this investigation result showed that competitive state anxiety as the main factor due to low performance in sport. A number of researchers have also drawn attention to the likelihood that cognitive and somatic anxiety are not entirely the independent sub-components they have been treated as, and in fact actually correlate to some extent with each other (Krane, 1990; Jones, Cale & Kervin, 1988; Petlichkoff & Gound, 1985). Morris, Davis and Hutchings (1981) had expressed that it was likely that there was some form of relationship between the two components. The main reason of performance low when high level of anxiety was that the anxiety had an effect on concentration (Jones, 2000; Landers, Wang & Courtet, 1985). Good concentration is known to help improve sports performance. According to Nideffer and Sagal (2001), concentration is crucial to sports performance and is often the deciding factor in athletic competition. An athlete who is able to maintain his or her concentration for the entire duration of the execution of a skill or performance or competition had a good chance of being successful (Ampofo-Boateng 2009). This result had proved that the level of competitive state anxiety is the best predictable factor for performance. In other words, the level of performance could be achieved by an athlete totally The International Journal of Indian Psychology 8
depends on his competitive state anxiety. This result also showed the importance of athletes to control the level of competitive state anxiety by using certain coping strategies, to improve their performance. CONCLUSIONS Clearly, competitive state anxiety has the capability to threaten a person s well being because it can increase a person s cognitive and somatic anxiety, which has a tendency to deteriorate athletes performance. Overall, the results showed a tendency for performance to decrease when competitive anxiety (cognitive and somatic) increased. The result support Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety, which a negative relationship exist between competitive state anxiety and performance. Sport psychologists, sport counselors or coaches should use this research to recommend coping strategies can be use by athletes, to decrease cognitive and somatic anxieties, to enhance performance. REFERENCES Ampofo-Boateng, K. 2009. Understanding sport psychology. Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia: UPENA. Anshel, M.H. 2003. Sport psychology: from theory to practice. New York: Benjamin Cummings. Aufenanger, S. J. 2005. Relationships between mental skills and competitive anxiety interpretation in open skill and close skill athletes. Thesis Master Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Beilock, S.L. & Carr, T.H. 2001. On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 701-725. Cox, R. H. 2011. Sport Psychology, concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hardy, L. & Jones, G. 1994. Future directions for performance related research in sport psychology. Journal of Sport Sciences 12, 61-92. Jones, G. 2000. Stress and anxiety. In S.J. Bull, Sport Psychology: A self-help Guide. Ramsbury, Marlborough: Crowood. Jones, G., Cale, A. & Kerwin, D.G. 1988. Multidimensional competitive state anxiety and psychomotor performance. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine 20, 3-7. Krane, V. 1990. Anxiety and athletic performance : A test for the multidimensional anxiety and The International Journal of Indian Psychology 9
catastrophe theories. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Krane, V., & Williams, J. 1994. Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and confidence in track and field athletics: The impact of gender, competitive level and task characteristics. International Journal of Sport Psychology 25, 203-217. Landers, Wang & Courtet, 1985. Peripheral narrowing among experienced and inexperienced rifle shooters under low and high stress condition. Research Quarterly 56, 122-130. Lloyd, P. & Mayes, A. 1999. Introduction to psychology: An integrated approach. London: Diamond books. Mahoney, M.J. & Meyers, A.W. 1989. Anxiety and athletic performance: Traditional and cognitive-development perspectives. In Dieter Hackfort and Charles D. Spielberger, Anxiety in sports. New York: Hemisphere. Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. 1990. Competitive Anxiety in Sport. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. Mc Nally, I. M. 2002. Contrasting Concepts of Competitive State-Anxiety in Sport: Multidimensional Anxiety and Catastrophe Theories. Athletic Journal: On line Journal of Sport Psychology. (http/www.contrasting Concepts of Competitive State-Anxiety in Sport.htm). Nideffer, R.M. & Sagal, M.S. 2001. Concentration and attention control training. In J.M. Williams (Ed.)., Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4 th edition). Mountain View, CA: Myfield. Ntoumanis, N. & Biddle, S. 1998. The relationship between competitive anxiety, achievement goals, and motivational climates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2, 176-187. Petlichkoff, L. & Gould, D. 1985. Interrelationship between pre and mismatch competitive state anxiety measures. Paper presented at the AAHPERD National Conference, Atlanta, Georgia. Raglin, J.S. & Hanin, Y.L. 2000. Competitive anxiety. In Yuri, L.H., Emotions in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rodrigo, G., Lusiardo, M., & Pereira, G. 1990. Relationship between anxiety and performance in The International Journal of Indian Psychology 10
soccer players. International Journal of Sport Psychology 21, 112-120. Rotella, R.J. & Lerner, J.D. 1993. Responding to competitive pressure. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey dan L.K. Tennant, Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York: Macmillan. Tsorbatzoudis, H., Barkoukis, V., Sideridis, G., & Grouios, G. 2002. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Greek version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). International Journal of Sport Psychology 33, 182-194. Turner, P.E. & Raglin, J.S. 1996. Variability in precompetition anxiety and performance in college track and field athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28, 378-385. Wann, D. L. 1997. Sport Psychology. New Jersey: Simon and Schuster. Weinberg, R.S. & Gould, D., 2011. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 11